SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are ex parte orders in nature.

First, we take up the penalty orders passed u/s. 271B and 271F of the Act. The Ld. AR pointed out that though different orders have been passed on 01.11.2017 in respect of confirmation of penalties, however, the assessee received the notice fixing the date of hearing of the appeal on 06.11.2017 and placed a copy of the notice before us. We have perused the notice and take note that the notice fixing the date of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) is noted as on 06.11.2017 whereas the impugned order has been passed five days before the date of hearing, therefore, there is a clear violation of natural justice and, therefore, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file to decide afresh

Coming to the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that the impugned order has been passed on 13.11.2017 and the date of fixing the hearing was on 06.11.2017 whereas the assessee had given an application for adjournment on 24.10.2017 which was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.10.2017 (which is evident from the seal affixed with the date of the office of the Ld. CIT(A) on the adjournment application), wherein the assessee has pleaded that since he is going to Mumbai on 25.10.2017 and coming back only on the evening of 09.11.2017, he pleaded that the appeal may be fixed on or after 20.11.2017. But the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the adjournment application and fixed the matter on 13.11.2017 and has dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee. We take note of the notice fixing the appeal on 06.11.2017 and we also take note of the adjournment application filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.10.2017 pleading that the matter may be heard after 20.11.2017. So, we note that the impugned order has been passed on 13.11.2017 overlooking the assessee’s adjournment application for just cause, which action of Ld. CIT(A), according to us, is not reasonable or fair and is in violation of Natural Justice, therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. Thus, this appeal also stands allowed for statistical purposes so all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) as discussed above.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.